Judge Royce Lamberth of the District Court for the District of Columbia said Bolton "disputes that his book contains any such classified information and emphasizes his months-long compliance with the prepublication review process" but criticized him because he "could have sued the government and sought relief in court." Lamberth said that Bolton "was entrusted with countless national secrets and privy to countless sensitive dealings" and "to Bolton, this is a selling point."

"He opted out of the review process before its conclusion. Unilateral fast-tracking carried the benefit of publicity and sales, and the cost of substantial risk exposure. This was Bolton's bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security," the judge wrote. "Bolton was wrong."

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday's broadcast of CNN's "The Situation Room" that President Donald Trump has been a "useful idiot" in his dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and North Korean Kim Jong-un.

• NYT: DOJ launches probe into Bolton book for possible classified information disclosures
• DOJ sues Bolton, aims to kill publication of his tell-all memoir 'rife with classified information'
• Book excerpts leaked: Bolton's accusations against Trump feed Democrats' frenzy
• US files breach of contract lawsuit against John Bolton blocking release of his book
• Judge rules Bolton book can be released, but his conduct 'raises grave national security concerns'
• Bolton's lies. They damage everyone and he doesn't care

The Supreme Courts of Wisconsin and Montana on Monday decided against the Green Party's nominee Howie Hawkins' presence on the ballot list for the November election. In both instances, court officials linked to the Democratic Party were responsible.

The simultaneous attempts to stop the Greens' presidential campaign in different states have led many online users to speculate that this might be a coordinated effort. Those who support this theory called out the Democrats for supposedly "destroying any semblance of democracy" in the USA.

Progressive pundit Krystal Ball took a less dramatic stance, joking that the Democrats would win more elections if they fought for voters as hard as they are fighting the Green Party.

Supporters of the Democratic Party, on the other hand, rejoiced. Activist Ady Barkan even called the Green's exclusion "best news of the day, by a mile."

In all three states, where the Green's presence on the ballot was disputed, it has been done for varying but seemingly "technical" reasons.

The decision to exclude the Greens was made by a four-to-three majority. Of those four, three justices are considered 'liberal' as their campaigns have been funded by Democratic donors and even the party itself, according to Ballotpedia.

In Montana, a Supreme Court Associate Justice, appointed by former Democratic president Barack Obama, denied an emergency request to try and stop the Greens from being disqualified. This move effectively upheld an earlier judgment to allow about 560 people to un-sign petitions that qualified the Green Party for the ballot, leaving them without enough signatures.

Pennsylvania's mail-in election was put on hold due to the Democratic Party arguing in court that there were disqualifying irregularities in how the Greens filed their election paperwork.

• Why Navalny was handed over to Germany
• Trump and the Gordian Knot, year three

• Belarusian opposition figurehead Maria Kolesnikova is officially under arrest
• Kremlin rubbishes suggestion Putin & Lukashenko will discuss Belarus-Russia unification as poll shows most Russians are opposed